D&D 5E Advice wanted on Player Vs Player Situation

[Lanefan]

Yeah, because DM's love splitting the party so much... I mean, who doesn't want to run two *separate* campaigns just to coddle a drama queen player?

Part of the DM's job.

That said, the Harry "campaign" probably doesn't have to amount to much - just a couple of dice rolls now and then to see how he's doing and-or whether he's doing anything that might interact with the main party in any way. Unless Harry makes it his goal to take out the rest of the party, in which case the DM will have to run Harry's campaign in more detail and then also DM Harry's eventual attack (with Harry still being played by his player) when it comes.

Harry operating alone also gives the DM some story options - he could, for example, end up as some sort of operative gathering information which eventually gets indirectly passed on to the party. Or he could intentionally or otherwise become a distraction, allowing the party freedom to act elsewhere. Etc.

And, "coddle a drama queen player" is more than a little harsh, given that we don't know any history of their group and-or whether this is a regular thing for this player or just a one-off.

Sorry, when you aren't fit to be in the party, you don't get to demand your own private campaign.

Demand? No. But that doesn't and shouldn't mean Harry must become an NPC.

Lanefan

 

[billd91]

Part of the DM's job.

Not with my limited time, it's not. PCs can leave a party as much as their players want, but it's not my job to run side campaigns for them just because a player asks for it. If I have time, we might do it. But I've got work to do, so probably not.
Splitting up temporarily to get some things done before meeting back up, that I'll do. But extended or indefinite absences? No.

 

[billd91]

Animating the dead is inherently evil in Pathfinder. I need to double check, but I think there's at least one Paladin code where smiting someone animating the dead is part of the code. Some of the other good gods might also qualify for allowing it; one faction of Sarenae's religion definitely would. And it's definitely blasphemy to more than a few, if I remember the lore correctly.

So, basically, you have to understand the paladin would be watching someone repeatedly do an act they know to not only be inherently evil, but also blasphemous to many good gods. It's a different situation from 5E.

I'm familiar with PF and Golarion, but if the paladin is expected to fight the necromancer, then do it when it's warranted and resolve the conflict with finality. Using smite on them daily to see if they've turned evil? Ridiculous.

 

[iserith]

I think what some folks are missing are what I think are key points in the D&D 5e Basic Rules. Anything bolded is my emphasis:

"In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in the jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain." (Page 2)

"Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose." (Page 9)

If someone is not doing these things, he or she is acting outside the basic expectation of the game. And while it's fine for anyone to play however he or she likes, "there are the rules of the game, and there are table rules for how the game is played." (DMG page 235). Table rules cover things like not playing to the game's default expectations which would seem to include players not working together or even having their characters attack or hinder one another. If those are your table rules, you are well-advised to make that known prior to play so players know what to expect.

 

[5ekyu]

It's possible you misunderstood the principle. When player A attacks player B, player B decides the outcome of only that attack, not the whole combat. If B retaliates against A, A gets to decide how that attack turns out. And so on. So it doesn't hand "power" to anybody, except in the sense that everybody gets to decide what happens to their own character.

The rest of your post had merit; I just wanted to to clarify that one point.

Thanks and you are quite correct. i thought it was a broader application of the term "outcome". By having it be just the initial attack that is determined you still leave the possibility of the attacker setting up a significant advantage even with the first attack failing - with bonus attacks and reactions or even just waiting for a time when one is on the wrong end of a long rest needed recharge. You raise the difficulty level on the ambush being a squash but don't prevent the squash. i had thought the latter your intent.

While i do not myself PVP other players without prior out-of-character discussion and agreement of all parties including the other players, if i were so inclined, this rule would not really change a thing just provide a little more limiting to the setup. it would still be a squash with follow-up appropriate consequences if my character was caught.

thanks

 

[5ekyu]

A player deciding to have his or her character attack or hinder another player's character is not always indicative of a "player problem." It's not my general preference that players seek conflict within the group given the near infinite opportunity for conflict with villains and monsters outside the group, but if the players both think that it will contribute to achieving the goals of play (everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story while playing), then there's no problem. The table rule stated by me and endorsed by [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] leaves the door open for that possibility while shutting down any unilateral PvP action. And, of course, as with any table rule, it needs to be discussed with the players prior to the game per the DMG (page 235) so there are no surprises.

I agree that PVP action is not always a player-v-player problem which is why i said "this" not "this is always" in the above. It seems pretty clear that in this case PVP pre-discussion has not been followed as per the DMG page 235. It also does not seem that both players have collborated in this case on how great the story-telling here will be, judging by the whole private chats with GM thing.

As for the somewhat rosy view expressed in the bold, if that is how things have worked for you thats great. For me, if i were planning a surprise assault on an unprepared PC, i would have little problem making it as much a squash as i wanted even with them getting to narrate away my first attack. its just a matter of timing and choices. One attack being wiped away in DND 5e for a prepared attacker is close to nothing given you know its the first attack that gets whiffed.

now of course, knowing thems the rules, its entirely possible none of the players ever let their characters get so far down around their teammates that they cannot survive such as circumstance. that would seem prudent. No sense risking a big draining combat with enemies if it just sets you up for a quick whacking by your allies.

Somehow the "don't have to outrun the zombie..." joke comes to mind.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

I'm familiar with PF and Golarion, but if the paladin is expected to fight the necromancer, then do it when it's warranted and resolve the conflict with finality. Using smite on them daily to see if they've turned evil? Ridiculous.

Well, there is that one cult of Sarenae...

 

[iserith]

I agree that PVP action is not always a player-v-player problem which is why i said "this" not "this is always" in the above. It seems pretty clear that in this case PVP pre-discussion has not been followed as per the DMG page 235. It also does not seem that both players have collborated in this case on how great the story-telling here will be, judging by the whole private chats with GM thing.

As for the somewhat rosy view expressed in the bold, if that is how things have worked for you thats great. For me, if i were planning a surprise assault on an unprepared PC, i would have little problem making it as much a squash as i wanted even with them getting to narrate away my first attack. its just a matter of timing and choices. One attack being wiped away in DND 5e for a prepared attacker is close to nothing given you know its the first attack that gets whiffed.

now of course, knowing thems the rules, its entirely possible none of the players ever let their characters get so far down around their teammates that they cannot survive such as circumstance. that would seem prudent. No sense risking a big draining combat with enemies if it just sets you up for a quick whacking by your allies.

Somehow the "don't have to outrun the zombie..." joke comes to mind.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand how the rule you're criticizing works. I've tried to explain it to you and so has @Elfcrusher and you still don't appear to get it. Perhaps someone else would be so kind as to take a crack at explaining it to you.

 

[5ekyu]

Not with my limited time, it's not. PCs can leave a party as much as their players want, but it's not my job to run side campaigns for them just because a player asks for it. If I have time, we might do it. But I've got work to do, so probably not.
Splitting up temporarily to get some things done before meeting back up, that I'll do. But extended or indefinite absences? No.

At the start of each game i give out a number of things about what to expect and not and this is one of the topics covered. in it i make clear that a character leaving the party or being thrown out should not expect solo runs (nor necessarily even a replacement or reload character.) i want the players to know their character is not "in" because they have a player at the table and needs to work with the other characters to earn the place in their group just as much as anyone else.

i have seen players in the past who basically used "i am a player" to basically run however they wanted and expect to stay around or to just have that character leave and then "reload" another - essentially exploiting the opportunity to work over the other players enjoyment.

that does not happen anymore at my table.

obviously brief split ups for missions and story are fine and if the player works with me (usually ahead of time) side stories are fine - i frequently do flashback scenes and such if full group is not there) but that is a very case-by-case and exceptional thing.

the "angry loner" everyone hates off on their own for a time is a nice trope for novels but not so much for PCs in a shared experience.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I take the opposite approach, where anything goes unless there's a specific pre-determined understanding that it won't.

Few people want to see their PC suddenly attacked by another player at the table unless they know from the get-go that might happen and are okay with it. I'm not an 'anything goes' DM. For example, I don't accept PC behavior that steps into egregiously offensive realms that breaks the camaraderie of the table. I want all my players to be happy with the ground rules for the game and be comfortable in the gaming environment. Antipathy between players is inevitable if unexpected violence breaks out between PCs and, in my experience, this breaks the game. As a DM I have editorial powers to prevent that from happening and players have the right to leave the game if they aren't happy with that.

I'd hope that all those who support the idea of PC autonomy jump all over this one, as not only are you suggesting the DM determines what the character does, you're suggesting giving the DM the character completely.

No, the character can make a choice, but there's a cost. There's a common convention in some games that PCs that succumb to undeath or lycanthropy become NPCs. This is an extension of that concept. By his actions the assassin is becoming a threat to the party by unilaterally attacking one of its' members. That PC is no different from the other NPCs that attack the party and by making that choice, is no longer of the party. Or that's one way of looking at it.

In my group I would go with the first suggestion I made in this thread. I'd tell both the players to sit down and work out what happens in this circumstance that is mutually agreeable to the both of them. If that works out we run it out narratively. If they can't come to consensus then that's where it ends and we move on.